to think it's a bit cheeky for the wealthy to monopolise places in the top state schools instead of coughing up for private?

[rainbowtoenails]

I've read a lot of the education threads on here and lots of people seem to despair that they can't get into their local state school unless they live within a few feet, where the house prices spike up by several thousands of pounds.
I agree but I'm going to take the arguement one step further by saying that I think its wrong for someone who can easily afford it, to forgo private schools, and take up places at the most oversubscribed state schools, often by using their money to inflate local house prices.
I know that these people have paid their taxes for the state schools but we all pay tax for services we dont use.
If everyone who could afford it went private there would be a lot more spaces in the top state schools for pupils from a wide variety of backgrounds. I firmly beleive that the top state schools should not only serve the rich. This perverse system means that lower income families are paying tax to provide an education they themselves have no access to.

WTF - what about the taxes of the wealthy paying for state schools???

The word 'cheeky' in the title really just underlines the op's attitude to anyone earning as far as I can see 'more' than them. I pay tax and am then cheeky to want to have some benefit from those taxes ????

Where I live, 97% of children get their first choice of secondary school, Chen, and I can't believe that's a complete anomaly.

Intrestingly there is an article today in the news about many of the middle classes can no longer afford the private school fees, how 11 independents have shut down due to lack of fee payers and the average private school has £120,000 of unpaid fee's (might have got some numbers wrong Im just going by memory here)

So whilst people might seem well off on the outside it might not always be the case anymore- they might have the big house with a mortage paid off years ago but not the £20k spare per child, per year anymore.

"Where I live, 97% of children get their first choice of secondary school, Chen, and I can't believe that's a complete anomaly."

IIRC one in six failed to get their first choice nationally, and in any case getting your first choice isn't a particularily good guide to whether you're getting a good education, especially if you're having to choose the best of a poor bunch (as is the case in a lot of non affluent areas).

Last I heard nearly half of all secondaries in the UK that were rated in the last couple of terms were rated at best satisfactory and at worst inadequate. Whether that is truly indicative of the quality of education in these schools is debatable but I'm surprised at the amount of resistance there is to the idea that inequality in access to a good education is a big issue in this country.

Ok, chen, so if 16% nationally didn't get their first choice, that probably allows for london and some of the other big cities with 11+ as well as the vast swathes of the country where there's not much of a problem, doesn't it?

I guess the point I was making was that even here, where 97% do get first choice, and where there are three outstanding comps and several goods with outstanding features, there are still some people who want a free school, and the three independents all seem to be thriving. So I don't think that people opt for private out of any real situation where they can't get a decent school, or out of desperation or whatever - they just do it because they want to. So all the cobblers about buying leafy houses for a billion million and finding faith and not wanting your child to get knifed are basically nonsense, and are used by those who like private schools per se to justify an ultimately snobbish position.

irksome I wasn't discussing people's motivations in going private (I do take issue with you that people going private do it solely out of snobbery), I was disagreeing with the view that a few posters seem to hold on here which is that everything's hunky dory with the current system and that the kinds of inequality being discussed are a figment of a fevered media's imagination.

You're of the opinion that there's vast swathes of the country where's there's not much of a problem, I'm not quite convinced that's true and in any case I'm these issues being concentrated in a few very populated areas and still affecting a good percentage of the population would make it OK anyway.

Oh, I don't think it is ok either. And no, to be fair I know I got distracted by the motivation thing .... however I guess I'm arguing against what seems to be a notion lots of people cling to, which is that most people end up with a not very good school which they didn't want.

The problem with 'first choice' stats of course is they're going to be skewed by people putting down schools they were never ever going to get - or, indeed, by people not bothering to put schools they know they won't get. So they don't entirely represent the true picture either way I suppose.

Plus, ive you've been told for years that you're no good and neither will your children be - as weve seen upthread, because its obvious fact that poor people are poor because they are stupid, and dont value education then you might just accept that the local shitty comp is where your children will go because schooling wont make any difference to your life chances, so you tick the box of the nearest school, which of course you get into, because its under-subscribed and 2 feet away from your front door.

I live in the catchment of one of the worst schools in the south.
It was turned into an academy under Labour and is now imploding
Year 7 intake was 60 out of 180 who live in the catchment : ie 120 of us sent our kids elsewhere.
I feel sorry for the kids at that school because their options are being destroyed by it.
I am so glad that my two are going to the comp up the road which will make the best of them.
Outside London, most of us have the chance to get our kids into first choice schools that can be up to 20 miles away.

We're low income and the boys are at decent state schools. Plenty of state schools are great- ds3's is in a quite needy estate and is a wonderful place to be (he's in a SN Base there).

Now you want difficult to get placements I will offer you the SN system: we were told ds1 had a 2 / 38 chance of getting a palce at the specilaist AS Base. Turns out it was 2 / 108 I disocvered yesterday. He has a plae and even in the transition epriod (it's a comp, he is yr 6) he has made marked academic improvement, came out year 9 in a science assessment.

KilledBill- yes that's what happened to my family; my primary so bad they ahd to close it and change name. I completely fell through the system and was frequently told how stupid I am. No expectations at all.

Yesterday my MA Turtor offered to put me forwards for a PHd. Now, I doubt I can ever afford it but- wow.

DH's school told his mum to send him somewhere for 'stupid chidlren', We got his uni grades today (first degree, BSc)- 80's and 90's mainly, percentages.

Why did I get to go back? Because Mum valued education enough that by the time I got to primary I already had a sound foundation. Thank God.

Yes and thank god we have good stories like yours, im glad it worked out for you.

And those saying that poorer people and those from failing state schools are "less intelligent and dont value education" should read Peachy's post.

I'd say getting a Master's is a pretty good sign that they do value education. Most just arent given the opportunity.

Poor does not equal stupid
stupid equals stupid
there are always parents who aim to lift their children up from a low level
there are also low level parents
there are also bone idle rich parents - my sister was a Benenden with some of them : shat on their kids from a great height but had money to pay for the repairs